No-one likes general adverts, and ours hadn't been updated for ages, so we're having a clear-out and a change round to make the new ones useful to you. These new adverts bring in a small amount to help pay for the board and keep it free for you to use, so please do use them whenever you can, Let our links help you find great books on glass or a new piece for your collection. Thank you for supporting the Board.

Author
Topic: Frothy glass - Nazeing? (Read 1429 times)

Nigel, I am slightly confused by your post - and I have also been reading all the Elwell( Nazeing and other glass) topics so I thought this explanation from a previous thread would be helpful to add here for future reference as well.Also a question - so is this then not Nazeing pre or post war but possibly Nazeing for Elwell in the Nazeing Elwell period? and my bowl the same?http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,26263.msg145415.html#msg145415

also regarding timing over which I have been curious - on previous threads it refers to Elwell as 1930's to 1950's but I then also thought I saw reference to Elwell still operating in the 60's. So currently could the 'Elwell period' be considered 1930's to 60's then?m

I will try and answer some of these queries, and then I will say no more for now, or until I decide to go into more detail in print. After all why would anyone give information away gratis when trying to regain the outlay of research, time, expenses, and so on?? Frankly, I already feel that I have said too much on these boards :cry:

I believe that I must be conveying the information incorrectly, otherwise why the confusion? Alternatively, reading the various posts which were not written with reference to one another, but as an answer to a specific question, muddies the waters

The fact that Elwell was totally seperate to any glassmaker and existed for an extended period of time does not bear any relation to the period that any given supplier actually supplied items. Therefore Elwell may have existed between the 1930's and 1960's, but why assume that Gray-Stan, Nazeing, Stevens and Williams, Thomas Webb, et al, supplied them for the whole of that time? For a start Gray-Stan ceased trading in 1936 (some references quote 1934), so how could they have traded with Elwell after then? They couldn't.

The other companies, which are only a selection of Elwell's suppliers, did NOT supply glass continually throughout the time Elwell traded in art glass according to research done to date. Until further research is done into all these other companies own records we will not even get an idea of when they supplied Elwell. Elwell's own records (or at least a known chunk of them) were destroyed by his grand-daughter as they were badly damaged by mould. Nazeing's are not complete.

Therfore how can anyone be expected to be accurate about dates of Elwell's association with any other company?

We believe that Elwell had glass made specifically by Nazeing (possibly to their own designs - ?) after the war. We do not know.

A further complication is that Elwell was a buyer of glass that both retailed and wholesaled. For instance, they supplied Heals glass that was made by Nazeing (Studio Yearbook 1936), although it is claimed that they produced the glass in the associated caption.

Frank's succinct answer, in another thread, might have been the correct route to take, rather than try to assist folks. Certainly it would take a great deal less time and thought :thup:

Nigel, thank you. this explains for me the mystery of Elwell, of whom I knew very little and have always found rather confusing!

It's such a shame that so many of their records were destroyed but we have to live with that and accept that we may never know the answers to some of the questions that bug us.

It's very easy in our age of instant information and mass access to data and archives, to forget that this hasn't always been the case and that finding out even the smallest snippet can often take someone like yourself years of dedicated hunting through a mountain of paperwork or archives, and I for one am eternally grateful that you do share this with us.

Collecting glass for me is a bit like doing a jigsaw, when the pieces have been mixed up in a large bin with the pieces from several hundred others, and you have to try and put it together without a picture and without knowing what the other jigsaws depicted either! :help: If I ever manage to get any bits of one jigsaw showing I'm thrilled!

I will try and answer some of these queries, and then I will say no more for now, or until I decide to go into more detail in print. After all why would anyone give information away gratis when trying to regain the outlay of research, time, expenses, and so on?? Frankly, I already feel that I have said too much on these boards

Nigel, I can understand why you say this. It's a difficult call isn't it, especially if it is a situation where it is one way traffic. However, I'm glad you do participate on the board as I have learnt so much from your posts. I hope likewise that when others are posting glass that finally gets id'd, this is helpful to you And that by posting pics of some of my items that I thought you were interested in may have been helpful to you with your research. Admittedly though, this is probably not equally balanced with the invaluable information you generously share.

I have only been collecting glass for a few years, but I also hope, albeit in a much smaller way given my lack of experience and knowledge, that I have helped others when I have actually known of an attribution for a piece they have.

I believe that I must be conveying the information incorrectly, otherwise why the confusion? Alternatively, reading the various posts which were not written with reference to one another, but as an answer to a specific question, muddies the waters

The thread I linked to was specific in that it linked straight to your post in that thread about the information you had previously posted on the Elwell find. I thought it would be useful in this thread for future reference although you are probably right, as it could also confuse matters in the future as and when more information is known.

The fact that Elwell was totally seperate to any glassmaker and existed for an extended period of time does not bear any relation to the period that any given supplier actually supplied items

I wasn't suggesting it did. Merely asking a thoughtful question on the time period Elwell was in existence.

Therefore Elwell may have existed between the 1930's and 1960's, but why assume that Gray-Stan, Nazeing, Stevens and Williams, Thomas Webb, et al, supplied them for the whole of that time? For a start Gray-Stan ceased trading in 1936 (some references quote 1934), so how could they have traded with Elwell after then? They couldn't

I didn't make that assumption at all. As I said, I was merely asking a question that had occurred to me reading previous threads.

Therfore how can anyone be expected to be accurate about dates of Elwell's association with any other company?

We believe that Elwell had glass made specifically by Nazeing (possibly to their own designs - ?) after the war. We do not know

This part I definitely did misunderstand then as from previous posts I read it that Nazeing had supplied Elwell with glass. I thought my little bowl had been attributed to a Nazeing supply for Elwell. Thank you for clarifying this.

A further complication is that Elwell was a buyer of glass that both retailed and wholesaled. For instance, they supplied Heals glass that was made by Nazeing (Studio Yearbook 1936), although it is claimed that they produced the glass in the associated caption.

Frank's succinct answer, in another thread, might have been the correct route to take, rather than try to assist folks. Certainly it would take a great deal less time and thought

I'm sorry you feel like that but as I said, whilst it may not for some reason seem like it, I very much appreciate the time taken to reply, and the fact that information does not come free and has been earned over a long period and no doubt at great expense.

I feel like I have upset you in some way, if I have I apologise. It most certainly was not intended m